Legal Opinion
H. P. Welch Co. v. State
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Decided June 7, 1938PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWoodbury, J.
The plaintiff does not contend that the legislature in enacting Laws 1933 c. 106, as amended by Laws 1933, c. 169, intended to impose direct regulations upon interstate commerce as such, nor does it contend that the provisions of these statutes operate either to discriminate against such commerce or to impose an undue or unreasonable burden upon it. Southern Railway Co. v. King, 217 U. S. 524. Neither does the company challenge the doctrine established in Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U. S. 610, 622, and consistently adhered to ever since, (South Carolina State Highway Dept. v. Barnwell Bros.,…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Barbier v. ConnollySupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Sproles v. BinfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Hendrick v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Smith v. CahoonSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Packard v. BantonSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- H. P. Welch Co. v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Cloutier v. State Milk Control BoardSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1942
- City of Bismarck v. MateriNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1970
- Albonico v. Madera Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
- Gazzola v. ClementsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1980
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.